December 29, 2012

So, the total number of fatalities from mass shootings since some point in the 1980s is roughly the same as the total number of homicides in Chicago this year (500).

On the other hand, most of the victims in Chicago are minorities. Most have criminal records. Indeed, a large fraction of the Chicago victims are drug dealers who might well have been the shooters themselves if only they'd shown more initiative (or better marksmanship).

Mass shooting victims, in contrast, are almost all random innocents. Indeed, the most recent mass shooters might be engaged in some kind of competition to come up with ever more outrageous samples of innocents, such as moviegoers or small white children.

By the way, you can see the collapse in mass shootings after the school shooting outside San Diego that I covered in early 2001. I argued at the time that we would see more and more such copycat crimes. Yet, the following year, 2002, was the only one with no victims since 1985.

Mass shootings are unlike most other kinds of violence in that there's no particular logic to their causes other than desire for notoriety and copycatism, both murky motivations. If the authorities let criminals, say, get away with carjackings, then there will be more carjackings. It's only rational. Yet, the rationality of these crimes makes deterrence more feasible. A variety of outrageous crimes -- carjacking, kidnapping, home invasion, even mugging -- have been increasingly deterred in recent decades.

But nobody ever gets away with a mass shooting.

Which means that, by definition, deterring mass shootings is difficult.

So, we need to prevent them. But the methods proposed for preventing such unusual and cloudy crimes -- putting a brave marksman cop in every school, taking away 300 million guns, locking up the weird, arming kindergarten teachers, etc. -- are not terribly confidence inspiring. Since nobody knows for sure what to do, this makes mass shootings ideal for arguing over. Everybody gets to expound on their favorite prejudice -- stomp on rednecks, hire gun lovers to sit in schools, or whatever -- without much connection to what will happen next.

195 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It's funny that the same data can be used to support two different sides. The people at this blog instantly see that mass shootings since 1982 don't equate to one good year in Chicago. The Mother Jones types see the increasing bars on the graph as cause for gun control now, regardless of the numerical numbers associated with those graphs.

Generally the left considers itself more logical than the right. But in this case it would appear the right is using more logic in that the numbers represented on that graph are small in comparison to the day-in-day-out violence in our cities. While the left just sees the big bars and thinks the world is going to end without gun control.

Mass shooters create a problem for rushton's brilliant theory, because they seem to be overwhelmingly white, even East Asian; the very people rushton predicted are lowest in crime, aggression and psychopathy, and yet what could be more evil than senselessly killing dozens of school children. Even the ghetto trash that mugs you is just trying to feed his family (or drug addiction) but these white boy shooters are just plain malicious. Can anyone think of a black mass shooter off the top of their head?

If you add up all the deaths caused by humans, regardless of whether you want to arbitrarily classify them as acts of murder, manslaughter, accidents, wars, terrorism, genocide, self-defense, whites have probably killed far more people than all other races combined. Part of this is just white technological proficiency, but this doesn't explain all the relatively low tech white shooters and Jeffrey dahmer types.

A few weeks ago a homeless black guy pushed a middle-aged Asian man onto the subway tracks here in NYC. A picture taken right before the fatal impact was on the cover of the NY Post. So a few days ago we had a copycat pushing, also fatal.

This time a Hispanic woman pushed an Indian guy. She told police it was because she's been hating Muslims ever since 9/11. The guy's name is not Muslim. I'm guessing he was a Hindu. The Zimmerman story hasn't been forgotten yet, so I'm guessing whites are unlikely to be blamed by the media for the actions of a Hispanic perp here. But non-Muslim Indians still seem to be blamed for 9/11 by deranged, Post-reading morons.

Mass shooters create a problem for rushton's brilliant theory, because they seem to be overwhelmingly white, even East Asian

Not really. How many mass shooters are there out of how many millions of whites and E. Asians? We hear about the shootings because they are horrific, not because they're so frequent.

If you add up all the deaths caused by humans, regardless of whether you want to arbitrarily classify them as acts of murder, manslaughter, accidents, wars, terrorism, genocide, self-defense, whites have probably killed far more people than all other races combined.

You discredit yourself by lumping in self-defense and accidents with willfully homicidal acts.

John Allen Mohammed and Lee Malvo, the DC shooters. Plus that thief at a beer distributorship or whatever it was, more recently. But yes, blacks are underrepresented among mass shooters. The reason is obvious. I can't believe you don't see it. Blacks don't plan as often or as far ahead as members of other races. This is true in every aspect of their lives, not just in criminality.

Most mass shootings are planned ahead. Blacks aren't less malicious than whites and Asians. Their malice is simply more spontaneous. Think about the difference between black and white music, "improvisation" vs. craftsmanship. The number of notes played by blacks may well be greater, but a comparison of the number of well thought-out musical ideas that take longer than 10 seconds to express will always favor whites.

It's just that the gun control advocates aren't showing all their work. Their working assumption is that privately owned handguns (or scary-looking rifles, or whatever) are basically serving no good purpose, making nobody happy in any worthwhile way, etc. Sort of the way prohibitionists thought about alcohol--they wanted tp get rid of something that nobody should want or need, in order to eliminate preventable harms.

But rather than taking a plunge into the murky waters of theoretical this and that in order to manufacture a mildly comforting cause & effect scenario to explain mass shootings by Whites and Asians - e.g., middle and upper middle class folk with nice health insurance and easy access to psychiatrists, psychologists and the drugs they prescribe - consider this doctor's take. She has experience with the ranks of young, mentally disturbed people from whom mass shooters are drawn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oigP3wWPWk8&feature=youtu.be

Legendary Linda: Black Mass shooters in the past two years alone: Omar Thornton, killed (8 White guys); Cookie Thornton (no relation) in Kirkwood CO, killed about five IIRC, that guy who killed SCE co-workers in City of Industry this year in SoCal, of course the Long Island Railway Shooter Colin Ferguson, many years ago (all his victims were White and he shouted anti-White epithets). Of course you have the Beltway Snipers, Lee Boyd Malvo and John Mohammed.

That's off the top of my head. VDARE if they ever open up the site again has a whole big list. They pay Steve so give em a few bucks, they need it.

And no, there's plenty of egregious examples of Black guys just shooting White guys out of racial hatred, Shawn Tyson who shot the two Brit White tourists because they had no money; Tyrone Woodfork who along with five other Black men still at large raped and murdered an elderly White couple in a home invasion. Eldridge Cleaver in Soul on Ice writes how he liked to rape White women to get back at Whitey; and Obama cites Malcolm X and Franz Fanon claiming they killed some random White dude to cleanse the White blood from their veins, and says he understood it.

Mass shootings seem to be notable in that it may be the one type of crime in which white males are actually close to being represented in proportion to their number, as opposed to all other types of offence. Hence the predictable, and rather odious comments of Linda and her ilk...

I do think there is a solution that while not perfect would have prevented the VT shootings, the Tuscon AZ shootings, and the Aurora Colorado shootings, and yes the Sandy Hook shootings.

That is reform of involuntary commitment. It probably would have saved the two people pushed in front subway trains.

If you are crazy, that is hearing voices crazy, the neighbor's lab talks to you and tells you to kill people (Son of Sam), the law won't allow you to be committed. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act prevents psychiatric commitment for pretty much all but those who cannot buy a meal or food at a grocery store if given money (that laughably is the standard). It is quite possible Tim McVeigh would have been committed as well, and perhaps the Columbine killers.

Those who go nuts, that is hear voices urging them to kill, think the TV spies on them, etc. generally do so in late adolescence or the early twenties. They are generally White or Asian males. You cannot cure them, but you can lock them up where they can't hurt people. For now, we can't lock that sort of person up.

Cho Seung Hui, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, were all certifiable. Everyone who knew them figured they were nuts, and dangerous. If they had been locked up, a lot of people would still be alive.

FWIW, Israel has lots of armed guards at schools, because Palestinian commandos have a bad habit of targeting and killing Israeli kids. When faced by active, organized people trying to kill their kids ... Israelis armed their schools. [Most teachers IIRC don't carry but there are armed men around as guards.]

While the intended targets may be criminals, I remember hearing somewhere that most people who get killed by bullets in inner cities are innocent bystanders caught in cross-fires or in the trajectory of ricochets.

Of course if you look at the criminal history of any black shooting victim admitted to an emergency room in Chicago you're more likely than in most other places to find priors, but that doesn't change the fact that tween-aged drug-dealing gang-bangers aren't terribly good marksmen.

I once half-joked that between the decrease in collateral damage and the increase in mutual deterrence, you could probably save a ton of lives in our inner cities by teaching gang members how to shoot straight. I also have a pet theory (romantic, I'll admit) that learning marksmanship tends to endow one with a greater respect for the gun, and with a greater reluctance to use it.

My dear Legendary Linda, if you add up all the deaths caused by humans, the vast majority of them were inflicted by technology other than firearms and explosives.

The causes of most intentional killings have, in fact, been quite bereft of technology. Willfully imposed famine, and the diseases born of starvation, have killed more humans than any technological artifacts have caused. Without firing a shot, without detonating an explosive, without wielding an even an edged weapon, by the mere withholding of sustenance Stalin starved to death up to 30-million of his own people, and Mao starved to death as many as 45-million of his own people. And these numbers vastly outstrip the Nazis' mass murders by gassing and gunshot (the Nazis also starved to death at least one million human beings, perhaps as many as two or three million). Starvation is, and has always been, the cheapest and most foolproof weapon of mass murder; it also worked with terrible efficiency for Pol Pot and his demented Khmer Rouge.

The Romans killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, by various means - condemnation to galley oars or unremitting toil in mines and quarries, starvation, torture, and crucifixion. In their first two waves (and in between and after those two waves) of jihad conquest, in which firearms scarcely figured, Moslems slaughtered countless millions of people, chiefly by edged weapons.. White people have not nearly been the sole proprietors of, or even the most prolific at, mass murder.

Finally, it can't be known that mass shooters are "just plain malicious," as precious few of them survive their own rampages: Mr. Sailer is correct that "there's no particular logic to their causes," as knowledge of their motives is nearly always completely lacking. Even when such individuals survive their onslaughts, such as Jared Loughner, their mental world proves so completely alien to the norm that their motives remain opaque to us.

Yes, off the top of my head I can think of a black mass shooter: Lee Malvo (and his éminence grise John Muhammad): not only did this pair indulge themselves in mass murder but, unlike most mass shooters whose vile sprees last for less than an hour, they also held an entire region and its law enforcement personnel and resources in terror for weeks on end.

I can also, off the top of my head, think of another non-white mass murderer: jihadist Nidal Hassan who in the space of seconds gunshot thirteen Americans and one unborn child to death.

A full-blooded attempt to confiscate all the privately owned firearms in the United States could not prevent further mass murder, as those bent on mass murder have proven endlessly inventive of means to commit their crimes against which there is, as there is also for mass shootings, no effective, let alone dependable, way to prevent their commission.

That line about black men shooting each other to buy bread was very amusing. There was a great article in The Washington Post a few years ago about black men shooting each other for slights suffered in public such as having a man not hold a door when entering a store in front of another man and having their shoes scuffed by a stranger on accident.

Reading LL's post makes me believe Whiskey may be correct in his theories.

"If you are crazy, that is hearing voices crazy, the neighbor's lab talks to you and tells you to kill people (Son of Sam), the law won't allow you to be committed."

David Berkowitz admitted to FBI profilers that he just made that up to sound crazy. Like the vast majority of other serial killers, there was a sexual motive to his crimes. He used to go back to the crime scenes and masturbate to relive the experience. DB and his ilk are sane people with deviant sexual compulsions and negligible care for their fellow man.

Of course, there are genuinely crazy, voice hearing schizophrenics who do murder, but they are easier to catch because the craziness interferes with their ability to logically plan things out.

I don't know about that. Asians have killed an awful lot too. Think of Mao Zedong, the Taiping Rebellion, the Japanese during WWII just to name a few.

Most of the deaths under Mao were due to farm collectivization and command industrialization. This drastically reduced agricultural output, and in a country with a large population dependent on agriculture, a couple bad harvests will lead to millions of deaths. It was bad policy rather than deliberate murder.

The Mongols killed a larger percentage of the world population than anyone else, by a long shot.(Interestingly enough, they have a higher homicide rate than any other country at their IQ level or above.)

"Mass shootings are unlike most other kinds of violence in that there's no particular logic to their causes other than desire for notoriety and copycatism, both murky motivations"

Steve, I still don't get this argument. Do you have any evidence Seung-Hui Cho or Adam Lanza were copying anyone? Or that they had an urge for notoriety? Have you heard of notes or journals or an internet presence from either that indicates a desire for notoriety and copycatism? Doesn't psychotic rage somewhat separate from the narcissistic flow of our culture explain their actions (at least hypothetically) better than the above two proposals? Your thinking here seems oddly sloppy from your norm, more motivated by disgust (rightly so) than evidence. I ask these questions because, though Dalrymple's musing and Clayton Cramer's essay (via C.R.) have been valuable, the connection between medication and shootings seems to me the most unexplored aspect of this phenomena. I'd like to see that connection dissected more...

As others have said the only real palliative is a better national strategy to deal with mental health - particularly the mental health of families and children, where character and dispostion are formed.

"Do you have any evidence Seung-Hui Cho or Adam Lanza were copying anyone? Or that they had an urge for notoriety?"

Unless you are suggesting that these shooters were completely ignorant of Columbine, this idea is not new and they are hence copycats of some sort.

As for an urge for notoriety - both Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho were certainly high IQ individuals. It is extremely unlikely that they had no idea that going to a school and shooting as many people as possible would not result in their notoriety. If they disliked notoriety, they sure had a funny way of showing it.

Furthermore, Seung-Hui Cho was obsessed by Columbine.

In 1999, during the spring of Cho's eighth grade year, the Columbine High School massacre made national news. Cho was transfixed by it. "I remember sitting in Spanish class with him, right next to him, and there being something written on his binder to the effect of, you know, ' 'F' you all, I hope you all burn in hell,' which I would assume meant us, the students," said Ben Baldwin, a classmate of Cho.[28] Also, Cho wrote in a school assignment about wanting to "repeat Columbine". The school contacted Cho's sister, who reported the incident to their parents. Cho was sent to a psychiatrist.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Behavior_in_school

Maybe Steve is not showing his workings, but his conclusions are on the money.

Mass shooters create a problem for rushton's brilliant theory, because they seem to be overwhelmingly white, even East Asian; the very people rushton predicted are lowest in crime, aggression and psychopathy, and yet what could be more evil than senselessly killing dozens of school children. Even the ghetto trash that mugs you is just trying to feed his family (or drug addiction) but these white boy shooters are just plain malicious.

Basically, since Whites and Asians are more apt to control their emotive behavior, once they do snap, they do so in spectacular fashion.

The Mongols killed a larger percentage of the world population than anyone else, by a long shot.(Interestingly enough, they have a higher homicide rate than any other country at their IQ level or above.)

"If you are crazy, that is hearing voices crazy, the neighbor's lab talks to you and tells you to kill people (Son of Sam), the law won't allow you to be committed."

Just an uninformed opinion, but I think truly crazy people are usually helpless and harmless. The ones that carry out violent acts, even if they seem insane and have been diagnosed as such, fully know right from wrong and plan with such precision, they should be sent to prison and not the nut house.

Nut houses should be for harmless imbeciles, not criminals. Criminally insane is redundant. Screw 'em.

"Here's a Mother Jones page that promises A 30-year timeline of mass shootings, with photos of the killers.

But it doesn't have photos for all of them, and there is only one black face. Here are eight photographs omitted from the Mother Jones page, which would have made it look more like America as it is today."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Colin FergusonOn December 7, 1993 Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island commuter train and began shooting the passengers with a Ruger P-89 9mm pistol.

Birthplace - JamaicaEthnicity - Black

Ferguson began shooting, selecting specific white people to gun down and sparing others.

A former factory worker who got caught stealing from his employer forced his way into the suburban Chicago engine plant Monday and opened fire one day before he was to report to prison. He killed five people, including himself, and wounded four others.

It is possible to deter mass shootings. I'll give two ways to deter them, one by punishment and one by prevention.

To deter mass shootings by punishment, we could make it clear that we will burn the shooter's face and finger prints off with acid, perform multiple plastic surgeries on them to totally and hideously alter their appearance, and make them live anonymously. Meanwhile, we will hire a group of people to stand in for them and receive all the notoriety they would have received.

To prevent them, we just need computer-controlled gun turrets in likely target zones that target and incapacitate and/or kill shooters. The technology is either there now, or could be there soon.

Here's something nobody's going to say, because it requires an Aspergery detachment: these mass shootings don't matter that much.

30 out of a nation of 300 million? How many people die each day from car accidents? Heart attacks? Cancer? Getting hit by lightning? We'd save more lives by bringing back the speed limit, or getting people to drop the potato chips, or whatever. Cutting the rate of smoking by 1% would probably save more lives, though nobody would notice.

But the kids are sudden, shocking, and sympathetic, so everyone gets sent into a tizzy.

Most of the deaths under Mao were due to farm collectivization and command industrialization. This drastically reduced agricultural output, and in a country with a large population dependent on agriculture, a couple bad harvests will lead to millions of deaths. It was bad policy rather than deliberate murder.

Regardless of the details of the Maoist campaigns-and they were not nearly as antiseptic as you are implying-the Chinese already knew from the examples of the Soviets that they were likely to cost many millions of lives.

This drastically reduced agricultural output, and in a country with a large population dependent on agriculture, a couple bad harvests will lead to millions of deaths. It was bad policy rather than deliberate murder.

I looked at the 10 school/workplace massacres that occurred in the U.S. (I excluded one because I couldn't find the guy's race).

A shocking 20% were done by Asians.

70% were done by whites

10% done by non-white caucasoid (considered white but U.S. Census)

0% done by blacks

Considering the small population of East Asians in the U.S., they are dramatically overrepresented

So once again we confirm rushton's brilliant insight that whites/caucasoids are in between blacks/negroids and East Asians/Mongoloids on behavioral traits.

Though ironically blacks are the least prone to the most extreme forms of violence.

Perhaps whites and East Asians are overcompensating for having less muscle/penis and sex than blacks by acting out in extreme forms of masculine violence? Sigma calls this beta male range. I call them K killers (a reference to rushton's r/K spectrum)

legendary linda has been brainwashed well by the media to see whites as more sadistic than blacks. isolation via mass immigration and all the rest is the cause of the mass shooters that and the prison-like public schools.

porn, the internet, decline of marriage/community, multiculturalism, diversity, miscegenation propaganda on TV/ads, public schools as prisons for boys, unemployment, hatred for a society they don't identify with and despise (i.e. not like an english boy in 1888).

""whites have probably killed far more people than all other races combined."

Hardly. Muslims, few of whom are white, have killed the most. Estimates are just in India, Muslims killed 80 million Hindus over 800 years of bloody invasions. Add the millions of black slaves killed on their way back to Arabia and all the wars of conquest by Islamic armies....they're the winners.

getting rid of public schools would help. cheaper to give everyone a computer & allow an itinerant teacher (with armed guard if needed) drop in on each student 1-2 hours a week (20 students, 90 mins per student, plus travel = 40 hour week) or 40 students, 30 minute visit every other week plus visit by computer an hour a week, etc.) it's time for this. time to throw out the public school buildings.

Most of the deaths under Mao were due to farm collectivization and command industrialization. This drastically reduced agricultural output, and in a country with a large population dependent on agriculture, a couple bad harvests will lead to millions of deaths. It was bad policy rather than deliberate murder.

It's a important reminder that "bad policy" kills a lot more people than all guns combined. Any rational planner would try things on a small scale before forcing them on the entire nation at gunpoint. That's the wisdom of our founding fathers that planned for a laboratory of democracy where each state could screw up or succeed on its own - and learn from their neighbors. And it's the insanity of our current central planned government, where mistakes aren't corrected, they're perpetuated.

Don't mass killers have the courtesy to leave a note these days? In the old days, there were suicide notes and manifestos to give a glimpse into the minds of the insane. The current generation is too busy playing video games. No wonder everyone's confused by their actions.

Using what cases you remember off the top of your head to construct a model of the world is seriously screwed up. Media bias and confirmation bias (it's easier for most people to remember cases that agree with their assumptions than cases that don't) almost guarantee that you will just make a fool of yourself with such reasoning, as with all the people who make some "why doesn't the ACLU care about this sort of case" comment withut bothering to find out that the ACLU is filing the lawsuit in the case they're discussing.

Look for data from a reliable source, not which anecdotes you can remember off the top of your head.

I agree with the Anonymous. Steve, your analysis of the motivations of mass shooters being achieving notoriety and copying others seems hard to believe. The last few mass killings have all indicated that the men in question were introverted, weird, angst-filled, the kind who would have been descrbed by pretty girls as "creeps". I think angst, hatred and narcissism is much more important than any desire for notoriety.

But the methods proposed for preventing such unusual and cloudy crimes -- putting a brave marksman cop in every school

In the case of crazy people, it's not so much a matter of preventing the crime as it is mitigating it once it happens. Maybe two or three killed instead of thirty. It took the cops in Newtown 20 minutes to show up.

I 'did the numbers. Going by the Motherjones list, black mass shooters are slightly overrepresented compared to their share of the population.

Further, even if they were underrepresented, it wouldn't be evidence against Rushton's theory, for at least reasons.

1) a mass shooting a la Virginia Tech or Newtown requires some fairly serious forethought and planning, so the prevalence of whites and Asians (overrepresented by at least a factor of 2 compared to their population, btw), would actually support Rushton. Not that that's a good thing, it it's a thing.

2) Rushton's theory is about average criminality of individuals in specific populations. For that analysis, it doesn't really matter how many people a criminal kills -- he (or rarely, she) still counts as one. The number of mass shooters compared to everyday criminals* is near totally insignificant, so their numbers don't really impact on evidence for or against the theory.

*These can be just as malicious, think of the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom case, or the Jan Pawel and Quiana Pietrzak case.

The lefts opposition to mass ownership of weapons has nothing to do with crime or with mass shootings. If no gun were ever used to commit any crime the left would still be against their being widely available. This is because the left is defined by its desire for a rigidly hierarchical and "top-down" system (in politics, in economics, in law, in the social sphere, in every aspect of human existence) and such a system is incompatible with the notion of "Every man a king in his own castle" which the right to bear arms and the right to self defense assumes.

Which means that you could devise a brilliant "fix" to mass shootings today, and the ongoing battle over gun control would continue on tomorrow with only the slightest of alterations.

If you add up all the deaths caused by humans, regardless of whether you want to arbitrarily classify them as acts of murder, manslaughter, accidents, wars, terrorism, genocide, self-defense, whites have probably killed far more people than all other races combined.

Very, very doubtful. Whites have not been angels, for sure, but there have been massive slaughters in Asia that most Westerners aren't aware of. The Taiping Rebellion for example, killed more people than World War I, and likely 50-100 times more than the American Civil War, which took place around the same time.

According to Wikipedia's list of deaths from "wars and anthropogenic disasters", only three of the top ten slaughters involved whites. Even in World War II - the bloodiest event in human history - possibly a third of the deaths were caused by the Japanese, despite it being a "white" conflict.

The interesting thing to me is that we have to get this from Mother Jones. The gov't doesn't even deign to keep these statistics, they're so far beneath its notice. Hell, the asterisk note is instructive: "many years include multiple cases." Meaning, as far as they know, some years only have one mass shooting. And one year had none.

For this, they want to take everyone's rights away. But the 12,000 people who die in drunk driving accidents don't matter, no sir. The libs are too busy swilling booze to save those children, I guess.

Mass shooters create a problem for rushton's brilliant theory, because they seem to be overwhelmingly white, even East Asian; the very people rushton predicted are lowest in crime, aggression and psychopathy, and yet what could be more evil than senselessly killing dozens of school children. Even the ghetto trash that mugs you is just trying to feed his family (or drug addiction) but these white boy shooters are just plain malicious. Can anyone think of a black mass shooter off the top of their head?

I dunno. Rushton's theory basically just boils down to a black>white>yellow or yellow>black>white pattern. I see no good reason to discount a black>white>yellow pattern in this case, especially since yellows do show quite a propensity for crimes that involve "snapping" or going mad-dog.

If you add up all the deaths caused by humans, regardless of whether you want to arbitrarily classify them as acts of murder, manslaughter, accidents, wars, terrorism, genocide, self-defense, whites have probably killed far more people than all other races combined. Part of this is just white technological proficiency, but this doesn't explain all the relatively low tech white shooters and Jeffrey dahmer types.

Some yellow went mad dog in China the same day as the Newtown shooting (or so I hear) and stabbed a bunch of kids. He didn't kill anyone AFAIK, but it wasn't for lack of trying. What I'm getting at is the behavioral pattern is the thing we're talking about, not the implements available to any particular person exhibiting them.

Also, the death rate of the Rwandan genocide far exceeded that of the Jewish holocaust, and it was carried out mainly with machetes. Blacks whupped the Nazis but good. God knows what they could get up to with some real organizational competency.

Their working assumption is that privately owned handguns (or scary-looking rifles, or whatever) are basically serving no good purpose, making nobody happy in any worthwhile way, etc. Sort of the way prohibitionists thought about alcohol--they wanted tp get rid of something that nobody should want or need, in order to eliminate preventable harms.

The "no legitimate NEED" thing is silly. Haven't these people ever heard of deterent? You know, crook sees your gun and runs, with no one harmed in the process? Crook knows you have guns in the house, and rules you out as a victim?

DB and his ilk are sane people with deviant sexual compulsions and negligible care for their fellow man.

"The Mongols killed a larger percentage of the world population than anyone else, by a long shot.(Interestingly enough, they have a higher homicide rate than any other country at their IQ level or above.)

Most of the deaths under Mao were due to farm collectivization and command industrialization. This drastically reduced agricultural output, and in a country with a large population dependent on agriculture, a couple bad harvests will lead to millions of deaths. It was bad policy rather than deliberate murder."

Bad policy plus a studied, callous disregard for it's effects. So it's okay to kill 30-40 million people as long as you don't actually put a bullet in their heads?

By the way, the Chicoms did in fact put lots of bullets in lots of people's heads.

"Mass shootings are unlike most other kinds of violence in that there's no particular logic to their causes other than desire for notoriety and copycatism, both murky motivations"

nonsense

your culture persecutes and criminalizes its own boys and men, separarting the two whenever possible, and whenever possible ensuring that boys have no father, nor even male guidance

your culture degrades and scapegoats its males for forty years, and in the same forty years suddenly there are "inexplicable" mass killings, waved-off by the matrix dwellers as "copycatism"

"copycatism" is just a way of avoiding responsibility for allowing the destruction of masculinity in your culture, the direct motivation of these shootings that everyone keeps calling "senseless," but which are perfectly understandable to me, and to many others

until americans face these hard truths, kids will keep getting shot, and militarizing the schools will only worsen the problem, b/c it continues willfully to ignore the inceptive cause

Even the ghetto trash that mugs you is just trying to feed his family (or drug addiction) but these white boy shooters are just plain malicious."

As others have pointed out, this is disingenuous. Nobody in this country needs to mug anyone to feed themselves. And a lot of robberies committed by ghetto trash are of the "robbery-gone-bad" kind - you know, where everyone in a fast-food place is herded into the back room and shot execution style. You know - "gone bad". Or consider the "car-jackings gone bad", like the Newsom/Christian murders - an innocent white couple, who were car-jacked and then, over the course of a day or two, raped, tortured, defiled, and murdered by four black thugs, who then abandoned the car and set fire to it. Clearly, obtaining a car was not the point - raping and murdering white people was.

You seem to neglect this particular kind of black specialty when it comes to especially heinous crimes.

"Can anyone think of a black mass shooter off the top of their head?"

Yes, in addition to the many that others have already mentioned, how about this guy:

"But the methods proposed for preventing such unusual and cloudy crimes -- putting a brave marksman cop in every school, taking away 300 million guns, locking up the weird, arming kindergarten teachers, etc."

This presupposes, Steve, that the real purpose of the gun-control crowd is to stop crimes like Sandy Hook. It isn't. Their purpose is to undermine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Mass-shootings just provide them with circumstances to exploit for that purpose.

people who get killed by bullets in inner cities are innocent bystanders

Nah. In Chicago 75% of the victims had a prior criminal record. Since the age of the victims skews pretty young it's likely that the true percentage of criminals is even higher--Jamal just hadn't been pinched yet even though he was out doing crimes.

Maybe you could argue the shooters were aiming at Trayvon but hit Jamal, but that seems like excessive analysis to me.

Of course commenter Power Child “remember(s) hearing (that) people who get killed by bullets in inner cities are innocent bystanders …” That’s the bloody point (as Tom Wolfe’s Brit newsman Peter Fallow might have said).

The notion that a large percentage of inner city gun fatalities are innocent bystanders shouldn't be that inconceivable, even to those privy to the GWD/GBI media construct. Like I said before, tween-aged drug-dealing gang-bangers aren't terribly good marksmen.

While the intended targets may be criminals, I remember hearing somewhere that most people who get killed by bullets in inner cities are innocent bystanders caught in cross-fires or in the trajectory of ricochets."

Speaking of innocent bystanders getting shot, the last ones I heard about were shot by New York City's finest:

And when they say "cross-fire" what they mean is a hail of bullets from the cops, as they emptied thier magazines. It's not clear that the perp even got off one shot at them (although, to be fair, he had just murdered somebody).

If you did an international comparison, you would probably find that mass murders with guns are indeed less common in countries with tighter gun controls, which is the liberal's main statistical argument. There haven't been any gun-related mass murders in the UK and Australia since the 1980s even though the media in these countries still covers mass murders with the same morbid fascination as the US media.

The problem is of course, that crime against law-abiding citizens (particulary in the US)would probably go up with tighter gun control. Minorities would be more likely to riot, burglaries, rapes and car jackings would probably increase, and organised criminals would be able to make a lot of money from smuggling in guns from south of the border (at the moment gun traffic goes the other way).

Similarly, for gun control to have an effect if would have to be done on a national scale, which in turn would lead to serious constitutional issues and tilt the political/legal system even further in favour of left wing liberals.

As to why whites and asians make up a large percentage of mass murderers it's probably partly due to the introversion factor. Introverts internalise negative feelings, while extroverts externalise negative feelings. Hence introverts commit less violent crime overall, but when they finally snap, they can be highly destructive (note how many if not most of these mass shooters kill themselves after their attacks) Objective pscyhologists have been making this argument since at least the 1920s.

"As for an urge for notoriety - both Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho were certainly high IQ individuals."

There seems to be no evidence suggesting that Lanza was "high IQ" in any meaningful sense. His grades at Western Connecticut State University, while not awful, weren't exactly something to write home about.

One reason people have trouble naming famous black mass murderers is because they forget about the Zebra murders and the press tried to hush it all up.

There were at least 14 murders and may have been 71. Some investigators claim that other affiliated groups in other cities killed many more than the official 14. Essentially all the victims were white and the four convicted murderers were black. These murders seem to be connected through the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims).

A typical mass murderer is a lone wolf who shoots up a school or restaurant with an semi-automatic weapon. This is almost always a one time event. He's caught or killed and that's that. But the Zebra murders were generally one victim at a time over a period of two years. There were dozens of separate shooting and machete incidents.

Unlike the school or movie theater shootings these murderers didn't want publicity. They were more like the Ted Bundy type of mass murderer in that they chose one victim at a time. But unlike Bundy they didn't do carefully targeted attacks. They drove around in cars and picked out random white victims.

The Zebra killers didn't use sophisticated weapons. Diane Feinstein is right about one thing you can't have a really terrible school massacre without a modern semi-automatic weapon. A popular older gun like a Winchester lever action(The Gun that Won the West) only holds five rounds in it's magazine. A Ruger Ranch Gun also holds only five, after which you have to feed in more rounds one at a time. With a big pause while you reload your victims will escape and/or the cops will deploy. That's why she's concerned about magazine sizes.

But the Zebra killers sometimes didn't even use guns much less sophisticated battle oriented weapons. Ban all guns and the Zebra killers would have used steak knives or hatchets.

So banning assault weapons seems to make some sense except that as we saw in the Rodney King riots and the more recent Sandy Super Storm lootings, citizens have to confront gangs of looters where they need a weapon with a large capacity quick change magazine. A simple six shot revolver is fine for Home Invasion. But you need more for Neighborhood Invasion.

If you did an international comparison, you would probably find that mass murders with guns are indeed less common in countries with tighter gun controls, which is the liberal's main statistical argument. There haven't been any gun-related mass murders in the UK and Australia since the 1980s even though the media in these countries still covers mass murders with the same morbid fascination as the US media.

But mass shootings only account for about 500 deaths over the past thirty years. In a country of 300 million, that does not amount to much. There is no reason to alter policy for that small a number. On the other hand, the 500 deaths in Chicago this year and comparable amounts in other big cities might present a better argument. Using the logic of liberals, I can only assume it must be racist that people only get worked up when a relatively small number of whites are shot versus a larger quantity of minorities.

Bad policy plus a studied, callous disregard for it's effects. So it's okay to kill 30-40 million people as long as you don't actually put a bullet in their heads?

I didn't say it was good or ok. Just that it wasn't exactly the deliberate extermination campaign that some people presume it was. The "Mao killed X millions" mantra is often repeated without any explanation, so people just end up assuming that all the millions of deaths were due to Mao rounding up millions in concentration camps and deliberately exterminating them or something.

They prohibited private cultivation and collectivized farming. They also forced former farmers into industry. And they implemented bad Soviet agricultural ideas from Lysenko and Maltsev about close planting and deep planting. All of this coincided with bad weather, floods, droughts, to severely reduce agricultural output and cause famines.

"There seems to be no evidence suggesting that Lanza was "high IQ" in any meaningful sense. His grades at Western Connecticut State University, while not awful, weren't exactly something to write home about."

I dunno. Rushton's theory basically just boils down to a black>white>yellow or yellow>black>white pattern. I see no good reason to discount a black>white>yellow pattern in this case, especially since yellows do show quite a propensity for crimes that involve "snapping" or going mad-dog.

Well it confirms Rushton's brilliant theory in that replicates the pattern of Negroids and Mongoloids being at opposite extremes, however rushton predicted that blacks occupied the more violent and unstable extreme and these mass shootings show the opposite, at least in my analysis of 10 U.S. school and workplace massacres; others here seem to dispute my stats so I'll have to analyze a larger sample at some point.

It's unclear why the race crime statistics should suddenly reverse for the most extreme crimes but it appears to simply be case of "revenge of the nerds". After a lifetime if being diminished for their physical, sexual, and social inferiority, whites, and especially East Asians use their high IQ's to unleash unimaginable carnage.

Black men, with their massive genitalia, muscle, rhythm, social skills and access to white women and affirmative action, simply no longer have enough to be angry about during youth and when they do,, lack the IQ, spatial ability, and g loaded complex reaction time needed to kill dozens of people before being stopped (equivalent to winning a high speed video game involving rapid shooting. Rushton/Jensen show that orientals have much faster reaction time than whites who have faster reaction time than blacks (though when it comes to physical movement speed, the pattern is reversed indicating a physiological tradeoff )

Comparing the Rwanda Genocide with the Holocaust is interesting. IN Rwanda, close to 75% of the Tutsi population was murdered. If you take the numbers as a whole, and I will work with the "accepted" numbers, then 66% of European Jews were murdered. So, yes the death rate was higher for the Tutsi than it was for the European Jews.

"I didn't say it was good or ok. Just that it wasn't exactly the deliberate extermination campaign that some people presume it was."

Okay... so if George W. Bush had enforced a crazy economic policy whereby 30 million Americans died, he wouldn't have killed those people, right? It would have been just an accident of bad planning. Now, you're correct that Mao didn't intend to kill all those people. So, technically it wasn't mass-murder but mass-manslaughter. But Americans freak out over 1000 dead in New Orleans after Katrina and blamed Bush for that. Imagine if Bush had pushed a economic policy that starved 30 million Americans to death. I think people would say he killed them, indeed that he murdered them. Suppose 90% of your family were wiped out in such famine. Would you not say Bush killed them?

In a way, Mao did kill all those people because he created a system where no one could oppose or criticize him. So, even people who knew his ideas were crazy just went along. And even when the hell was breaking loose and millions were starving, no one said anything to Mao since they were afraid to give him the bad news. Prior to the Great Leap, Mao had many people killed or imprisoned for reporting the truth. And so the culture of fear and fanaticism made it impossible to alert Mao what was really happening.

But there's worse. When Mao was finally told of what was happening, he was extremely callous. He said people shouldn't complain so much. His attitude was 'let them eat cake'. He said people shouldn't complain of not having record players and other modern appliances. I mean people were starving for lack of food and Mao was acting like people were bitching for lack of western consumer goods.

And there were uprisings in China, and they were all brutally suppressed and countless people were killed in horrible ways.

And there was worse. Though a horror of horrors took place, it was all suppressed, and most people in Chinese cities didn't know about it or if they heard about it, they said nothing out of fear. So, even though Mao's policy killed all those people, the official version was 'bad weather led to food shortages but the wonderful communist party helped the people and made things easier for them'.And not long afterwards, Mao was the god-hero to millions of young people who went on a mass murder spree in his name. Imagine that. Some guys pushes a program that kills tens of millions. But since the state controls education, media, and information, it never becomes part of the official truth. I don't know if a single photograph exists of the effects of the Great Leap. It's as if 30 million disappeared into a black hole. Mao said he loves the young because they're like a blank slate on which he could write beautiful calligraphy. In other words, young people have no memory and will believe anything. (I suppose liberals love young people for the same reason. They'll believe anything, even 'gay marriage'. And since old white people with memory of a different America may not agree with the new vision, the liberals are ecstatic about the mass deaths of old white folks. Though liberals are not murdering old whites, they are happy to murder the memory of a bygone white america, and whatever is remembered of it is 'evil white men').

And since most China scholars in the West were communist-sympathizers, they swallowed the propaganda. I took a class on modern Chinese history in college, and our professor told me he was a left-leaning college major when the Great Leap was happening. He said reports were coming out of HK and Taiwan of what was happening, but almost every Western scholar of China 'pooh-poohed'--his words--the reports as 'capitalist' propaganda. So, western 'experts' didn't want to know either--just like the professor in BARBARIAN INVASIONS. So-called free intellectuals and scholars in the free world were aiding and abetting a murderous regime(just as earlier ones did the same for Stalin in the 1930s).

Though Mao didn't deliberately set out to kill all those people, he didn't care that all those people died. And he blamed everyone but himself--just like Hitler blamed everyone but himself for defeat in WWII. And when Mao heard of the disaster, he did almost nothing to alleviate the suffering.

China finally turned around thanks to Liu and Deng's economic reforms, but that made Mao angry and envious, and so, he targeted them during the Cultural Revolution. Deng miraculously survived, but Liu was driven to death by Red Guards. And Mao didn't do anything to save him. If anything, Mao watched film footage of Liu rotting away in a dirty cell. Mao was a historical giant but a monster through and through.

But he cannot be blamed alone. There is something about Chinese culture, history, and values that are cruel, sadistic, callous, fanatical, and sick. Chinese have always worshiped great emperors, and they continue to worship Mao. So, the Chinese people bear responsibility too for having developed a culture where someone like Mao was possible.

Homogeneity is often beneficial, but the downside of homogeneity is the kind of madness we saw with Hitlerism and Maoism. If Germany had been diverse, non-Germans would have opposed and countered the rise of Hitler or Hitler's policies. And if China hadn't been so homogeneous and ethnically united, many people would not have gone along with Mao's mad policies. Chinese all went along because they were all Chinese and felt as one united people. Sometimes, diversity can lead to more corruption, i.e. tribal politics of Chicago. But the advantage of diversity is that every group will criticize other groups. So, Italian-Americans will cry foul on Irish crooks, Irish-Americans will cry foul on Wasp crooks, and Anglo-Americans will cry foul on Asian crooks, and etc. (The problem with Jews and blacks is we are not allowed to criticize them cuz it be 'racist' or 'antisemitic'.) But in a place like Japan, no one says anything since it's considered rude to mess up the social and political harmony. If Japan was 10% white, I'll bet lots of whites would cry foul on Japanese shittery. Indeed, some of the best critics of Japan have been foreigners as most Japanese are too chickenshit to stick their necks out.

"To deter mass shootings by punishment, we could make it clear that we will burn the shooter's face and finger prints off with acid...To prevent them, we just need computer-controlled gun turrets in likely target zones that target and incapacitate and/or kill shooters."

Both are insanely unconstitutional under US law, but the Chinese would probably like the cut of your jibe.

Comparing the Rwanda Genocide with the Holocaust is interesting. IN Rwanda, close to 75% of the Tutsi population was murdered. If you take the numbers as a whole, and I will work with the "accepted" numbers, then 66% of European Jews were murdered. So, yes the death rate was higher for the Tutsi than it was for the European Jews.

No, this is misleading because there were significant Tutsi populations outside Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide was in Rwanda. The Holocaust was not just in a single country, but throughout Europe.

"As for an urge for notoriety - both Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho were certainly high IQ individuals. It is extremely unlikely that they had no idea that going to a school and shooting as many people as possible would not result in their notoriety. If they disliked notoriety, they sure had a funny way of showing it."

I don't doubt they knew their actions would be noticed, but that doesn't prove notoriety was the driving force behind their actions. The fact they both blew their brains out, thus not sticking around to experience this notoriety, further illustrates the fault in this thinking. Again, let's look at anti-psychotics. Does anyone know if Lanza was taking anything? Has there been any more info released on his damaged hard-drives?

Okay... so if George W. Bush had enforced a crazy economic policy whereby 30 million Americans died, he wouldn't have killed those people, right? It would have been just an accident of bad planning.Now, you're correct that Mao didn't intend to kill all those people. So, technically it wasn't mass-murder but mass-manslaughter.But Americans freak out over 1000 dead in New Orleans after Katrina and blamed Bush for that.Imagine if Bush had pushed a economic policy that starved 30 million Americans to death. I think people would say he killed them, indeed that he murdered them. Suppose 90% of your family were wiped out in such famine. Would you not say Bush killed them?

It wouldn't be the same as direct extermination or genocide. Are you implying that Bush's policies during Katrina were the equivalent of exterminationism?

IN Rwanda, close to 75% of the Tutsi population was murdered. If you take the numbers as a whole, and I will work with the "accepted" numbers, then 66% of European Jews were murdered. So, yes the death rate was higher for the Tutsi than it was for the European Jews.

In some parts of Europe, virtually 100% of the Jewish population was murdered.

Well it confirms Rushton's brilliant theory in that replicates the pattern of Negroids and Mongoloids being at opposite extremes, however rushton predicted that blacks occupied the more violent and unstable extreme and these mass shootings show the opposite, at least in my analysis of 10 U.S. school and workplace massacres; others here seem to dispute my stats so I'll have to analyze a larger sample at some point.

You don't have to look at a larger sample, just look at the specifics provided for you.

You simply ignore evidence presented. Omar Thornton not a workplace killer? Really? He premeditatedly murdered 8 White men at work.

Another famous but forgotten mass murder by blacks was the mass slaughter of seven people in the home of Kareem Abdul Jabar. I remember it because I knew the area where it happen. But it seems to have been shunted down the memory hole. I looked Jabbar up in Wikipedia but the murders are not in a very long article. Nor is it in any web biography I could find. You could read about him at length and never run across a mention of the mass murders.

It's hard to imagine a more famous sports figure of a more despicable crime (shooting mostly children). Yet these murders have been actively forgotten. Who was more famous Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Sharon Tate?

"Black men, with their massive genitalia, muscle, rhythm, social skills and access to white women and affirmative action, simply no longer have enough to be angry about during youth and when they do,, lack the IQ, spatial ability, and g loaded complex reaction time needed to kill dozens of people before being stopped"

It's all relative. You speak of blacks as a whole, but if you lived in or near a black community, there is no such thing as singularity of black manhood. Among blacks, there are toughest guys, tougher guys, tough guys, not-so-tough guys, and etc. And there's a lot of resentment and rage, which is why there's so much black-on-black violence. The thing about blacks is if you know the pecking order and get along, you can avoid most violence. But among two comparable guys vying for who's tougher, there can be some nasty violence. Because blacks are always alert to the possibility of violence, their violence tends to be more pragmatic and 'necessary' than fantastic and delirious. You're trying to 'survive', not make a statement.

Now, the thing to remember about Columbine, V-tech, and Newtown was that all those nerd-killers didn't have it so bad. Maybe Columbine kids were bullied, but it was nothing so serious. And though we heard reports that Senug Cho was laughed at in high school because of the way he talked, he still had a pretty privileged life in a suburban community. It's not like he was beaten up everyday and had his lunch money stolen. And Adam Lanza grew up in a nice neighborhood. Many people grew up in far worse neighborhoods with worse thugs and bullies.

Paradoxically, extreme thuggery and bullying may prevent the likes of Columbiners, Seung Cho, and Adam Lanza. Kids who grow up under real violence and thuggery wake up to one fact of reality: there are big tough dogs and they's gonna whup your ass if you get out of line, and THAT IS THE FACT OF LIFE; ALSO, NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOU.

So, there's no time for revenge-of-nerd fantasy in order to gain the attention--and even affection for your suffering via massive violence. You know you better watch over your shoulder and know your place at all times. And in such a community, there's no sympathy or sensitivity for the weak. So, if you're weak, you just keep your head low and try to survive.

But it's different in a nice affluent community. Yes, even in such places, nerds and dorks can be bullied, mocked, or shunned. But there's no real great violence or the kind of terror that is common in black schools. So, the 'victims' feel bolder in fantasizing revenge. If Mike Tyson whupped your ass in school every day, the message you'd take away is, 'dat motha sho is big and tough. Gotta keep my head low and save my ass.' THAT is what's gonna run through your head 24/7.

But if some jerk popular kid dissed you in a nice suburban school, you might feel small but also bold enough to dream of getting him back--like in HEATHERS movie. Also, an affluent community sends mixed signals. If a black community sends the message of 'might is right', the affluent white community sends the message of 'we are all so sensitive, so caring, so happily wussy'. So, a nerd kid becomes confused. On the one hand popular kids either ridicule them or ignore them. It feels so unfair. But on the other hand, the community says 'we are so caring and nice'. The bullied kid resents the bullier, but the bullied kid also wanna bully others. He wants to feel big. Since the community says, 'we are sooo nice and wussy', he looks down on the wussy-seeming community and wants to strike terror into it; bullies like to pick on the weak. In the movie ELEPHANT, the two kids don't just kill the popular kids but loser kids. They wanna strike back at the bullies but also wanna bully those even wussier than themselves. It's like Takeshi Kitano movies. He fights back at bullies and bigshots but he also feels contempt for wussies and pushes them around.

Anyway, if you grow up in a black community, the thugs are so nasty that you don't entertain the notion of even fighting back. But 'bullying' in suburbs is much milder, and so, nerds can fantasize about getting the bullies back. Bullies seem nasty but not all-powerful. Also, if your community is high-crime, you worry about daily violence and crime. But if your community is low-crime, you can sit in your bedroom and fantasize about violence. If Adam Lanza had lived in a black community, his main obsession would have been, 'what if another black guy comes and steals my tv and kicks my ass?' But in his white community, he could just sulk and fantasize about how he was gonna use his violence to get his own way.

Also, the culture of 'sensitivity' encourages the 'victims' in suburban communities to make mountains out of molehills. We are living in the age of hysteria. Not providing free BCP for a college student is 'war against women'!!!! So, every nerd who feels dissed feels like a great great injustice has been done to him. At least girls, blacks, gays, and etc have outlets for their hysteria through PC. White male nerds--and maybe Asian male nerds too--are not favored by PC. And so they brood. So, paradoxically, the milder form of bullying and the cult of sensitivity may be fueling these killings.

After all, there are so many whites in poor neighborhoods who are terribly bullied and attacked by blacks. And there are Asians in poorer parts of cities who've been attacked by blacks in places in Philadelphia.Yet, the mass killings have taken places in affluent and relatively quiet places like Columbine, V-tech campus, and Newtown. How come poor white trash doesn't mow down blacks? Why doesn't some Chinese geek in Philadelphia blow away a bunch of black kids?

Another thing... like Sun Tzu said in 'the art of war' about water, aggression flows toward the seemingly weak. Sun Tzu said water goes around hard rocks and flows toward easy smooth areas. This is why nice teachers oftentimes get it worse than tough teachers. And this is why the nicer parent sometimes gets more blame than the tougher one. People like to blame others, and so seek easy targets. It's like predators prefer easy prey to tougher prey.

In America, white people, liberal people, educated people, affluent people, and etc are supposed to care. They are supposed to be sensitive. They are supposed to be compassionate. This fact makes them the preferred target for nerd killers. Caring and compassionate people tend to seem weaker and wimpier than tough and badass people. If a white guy attacked a bunch of blacks, black would howl and whup his ass and curse him out. But if a white guy or Asian guy attacked middle class white folks, middle class white folks will just wring their hands and try to 'understand'. They won't blame the killer but the NRA.

But, it could also be that the nerd killer targets 'nice' white people because of the 'hypocrite' factor. David Chapman killed John Lennon because Lennon, who sang about love and peace, turned out to be rich uncaring pig. And this is what angry nerds discover. They hear all about the virtues of being decent and sensitive from 'nice' white folks but the fact is most nice white people--even liberals--don't really care about anything but their own success, pleasure, popularity, and vanity. It's like the scene in SIXTH SENSE. The killer kills the doctor because he was led to believe that the doctor cares about him but comes to the conclusion that the doctor doesn't care and only cares for himself. Doctor seems both caring(weak) and uncaring(hypocritical).

China's population during the Great Leap Forward was around 667 million. Estimates of the famine deaths during the GLF range from 3% to 6% of China's population.

The Irish Potato Famine resulted in 1 million Irish deaths. The population of Ireland had been around 8 million, so the IPF resulted in around 12.5% of Ireland's population being killed.

The IPF is blamed on British policies. And potatoes were being exported to England from rural Ireland during the famine, similar to how grain was being transferred out of rural China into the eastern coast and cities during the GLF.

So the British authorities are responsible for a greater crime than Mao since their policies killed off a greater proportion of the population.

"getting rid of public schools would help. cheaper to give everyone a computer & allow an itinerant teacher (with armed guard if needed) drop in on each student 1-2 hours a week (20 students, 90 mins per student, plus travel = 40 hour week) or 40 students, 30 minute visit every other week plus visit by computer an hour a week, etc.) it's time for this. time to throw out the public school buildings."

Is that some kind of joke? As if kids aren't socially impaired enough. If it weren't for school I'd have no friends other than relatives and a few neighbor kids who didn't even like me that much.

Most of the deaths under Mao were due to farm collectivization and command industrialization. This drastically reduced agricultural output, and in a country with a large population dependent on agriculture, a couple bad harvests will lead to millions of deaths. It was bad policy rather than deliberate murder.

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. The policy was "bad" only in your eyes - it worked as intended in the eyes of the people who conceived it.

Mass shootings (like Sandy Hook) are indeed far more newsworthy because we see the victims as having (had) no locus of control. The event appears unavoidable--as if it could happen to ourselves given the right (wrong!) time and place. I think Bernard Weiner was the psychologist who first articulated this.

Now add in a bit of Availability Bias (whereby we tend to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory) and the newsworthiness becomes a bit compounding.

By contrast, when the public (or the press) can ascribe some cause under control of the victim (e.g., drug dealing)--even if only a sliver of cause--the event becomes much less newsworthy. The event is perceived as avoidable. And once its causes are known, it's simply not new "news" anymore.

Homogeneity is often beneficial, but the downside of homogeneity is the kind of madness we saw with Hitlerism and Maoism. If Germany had been diverse, non-Germans would have opposed and countered the rise of Hitler or Hitler's policies. And if China hadn't been so homogeneous and ethnically united, many people would not have gone along with Mao's mad policies. Chinese all went along because they were all Chinese and felt as one united people.

One of the many down sides of the recent lefty influx is all these pseudo-profound but in fact comically inane remarks which now litter every comment thread around here.

Last I checked all power here on Earth was 100% homogeneously held by human beings. We must break the human hegemony! They are to blame for all our problems!

""Bad policy plus a studied, callous disregard for it's effects. So it's okay to kill 30-40 million people as long as you don't actually put a bullet in their heads?""

I didn't say it was good or ok. Just that it wasn't exactly the deliberate extermination campaign that some people presume it was."

How do we know it wasn't intentional? Of course, Mao would never have admitted as much even if it were true. However we do know that the communist party's leadership were concerned about China's large and growing population. Perhaps Mao considered mass starvation to be a feature, not a bug, as they say.

"The Mongols are not East Asians originally, being Turco-Uraic-Altaic ethnically. That is, Turanids. They have browner skin and longer noses than typical Koreans, for instance."

When I do a google image search of "Mongolian", they look very much East Asian to me.

That's where "Mongoloid" comes from. Mongoloids are Altaic. Original Chinese weren't Mongoloids, that's why their language isn't Altaic, but Mongolic, Manchurian, Korean, and Japanese are. They only began to take on the Altaic/Mongoloid phenotype after mixing with Manchurians, Mongolians, and Koreans. This is especially evident when you compare northern vs southern Chinese, with northern Chinks having slantier eyes and higher cheek bones like other East Asians.

If you did an international comparison, you would probably find that mass murders with guns are indeed less common in countries with tighter gun controls, which is the liberal's main statistical argument. There haven't been any gun-related mass murders in the UK and Australia since the 1980s even though the media in these countries still covers mass murders with the same morbid fascination as the US media."

Homogeneity is often beneficial, but the downside of homogeneity is the kind of madness we saw with Hitlerism and Maoism. If Germany had been diverse, non-Germans would have opposed and countered the rise of Hitler or Hitler's policies. And if China hadn't been so homogeneous and ethnically united, many people would not have gone along with Mao's mad policies. Chinese all went along because they were all Chinese and felt as one united people.

Chinese aren't homogeneous, even if you're only looking at Han Chinese. Despite Han Chinese being identified as an ethnicity, its a cultural identity. not a biological one. This is especially difficult for Westerners to grasp, since they all have slanted eyes to begin with.

Basically, through the aeons, anyone that spoke one of the many dialects of Chinese (most shouldn't even be considered dialects, but separate languages) and identified with traditional Chinese (very flexible term) culture, one is Han. It actually has nothing to do with ethnicity as we understand it in the west.

"That doesn't mean he's high IQ. Plenty of reasonably bright high school kids are good at math and English. "

How high is high? Above average, surely. It seems very unlikely that someone who is sufficiently good at math and English as to be touted as an example for other students to follow, is not at least above average in the IQ stakes.

Going back to my point, they were high IQ enough to plan their crimes in advance. That Cho created a video suggests that achieving notoriety was indeed a part of his motivation.

"I don't doubt they knew their actions would be noticed, but that doesn't prove notoriety was the driving force behind their actions. The fact they both blew their brains out, thus not sticking around to experience this notoriety, further illustrates the fault in this thinking."

Why should you assume that people are incapable of caring about the legacy they leave? Cannot someone care about achieving some sort of lasting fame, or infamy, irrespective of whether they are around to enjoy it? It is actually very human to care about our legacy.*

Most people who decide to plan a mass murder realises that he is probably not getting out of it alive. Looked at that way, it is often a form of suicide. But it is an extremely uncommon form of suicide, to take as many people with you as possible. Especially targetting school children, there can really be no other motivation than to achieve some form of notoriety. It's not like those school children did anything to Lanza.

* Having and providing for our children and grandchildren is an act that will last beyond our years. From a genetic perspective, it is unsound not to care about what happens to them after we die, as whatever actions we take to ensure their success will tend to increase the spread of such DNA.

How do we know it wasn't intentional? Of course, Mao would never have admitted as much even if it were true. However we do know that the communist party's leadership were concerned about China's large and growing population. Perhaps Mao considered mass starvation to be a feature, not a bug, as they say.

If you wanted to kill people to curb population growth, why would you only kill 3% to 6% of the population and make a negligible impact on population growth?

"Genius is a much overused word. Geniuses don't fritter away their time with video games. What passes for genius among the average person is often pretty banal stuff."

Genius is related to IQ. There are some sources that ascribe genius to those above certain IQ thresholds. What a person does with their genius is really orthogonal to the genius itself. Some geniuses do great things with their genius, others do evil things, others still do banal things. Not every genius gets excellent grades at university either. It depends on how much they apply themselves.

Lanza may not have been a genius, but usually idiots or even average IQ people are not described by their peers as "genius".

Another famous but forgotten mass murder by blacks was the mass slaughter of seven people in the home of Kareem Abdul Jabar. I remember it because I knew the area where it happen. But it seems to have been shunted down the memory hole. I looked Jabbar up in Wikipedia but the murders are not in a very long article. Nor is it in any web biography I could find. You could read about him at length and never run across a mention of the mass murders.

It's hard to imagine a more famous sports figure of a more despicable crime (shooting mostly children). Yet these murders have been actively forgotten. Who was more famous Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Sharon Tate?

"In 1972 he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link."

How do we know it wasn't intentional? Of course, Mao would never have admitted as much even if it were true. However we do know that the communist party's leadership were concerned about China's large and growing population. Perhaps Mao considered mass starvation to be a feature, not a bug, as they say.

Based on this reasoning, a greater case could be made that the Irish Potato Famine was a deliberate plot by the British authorities to curb Ireland's population. 12.5% of Ireland's population was killed, and another 10% or so left Ireland. Ireland's population was reduced 25% during the IPF. Ireland's population never recovered. It peaked at around 8 million in 1841 right before the IPF and never recovered.

Whereas 3% to 6% in China died during the GLF and China's population has doubled since then.

Lanza was probably suffering from some obscure terminal disease like late onset Tay Sachs. The press mentioned that he needed to be handled with kid gloves when he played baseball because he didn't feel pain. Maybe he was feigning that he was insensitive to discourage bullies from picking on him. It is a very rare symptom.

Actually, it seems to be hispanics - not blacks - who are underrepresented among American mass-murderers. For a group that makes up 16% of the US population, there haven't been many hispanic spree-shooters. The IHOP shooter in Carson City last year was hispanic. The spree-shooting at a homeless camp in Long Beach in early 2008 was committed by hispanic men. Jennifer San Marco (who killed 7 people in Goleta, CA in 2006) was apparently a "white hispanic." A gangbanger named Alexis Candelario Santana is accused of gunning down 8 people in a spree shooting at a bar in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico in 2009. There are probably a few others I'm forgetting, but there aren't a whole lot of them overall.

Blacks are well-represented as mass-shooters. Aside from incidents already mentioned, black spree shooters include Rodrick Dantzler (who killed 7 people in Grand Rapids in 2011), Marcus Wesson (who shot 9 dead in Fresno in 2004), Shihean Black (convicted of shooting 7 to death in Philadelphia in 2000), James Stewart and Desmond Turner (convicted of shooting 7 to death in Indianapolis in 2006), Michael Anderson (convicted of the 'Central City Massacre' in New Orleans in 2006), Nathan Dunlap (who went on a shooting spree at a Chuck E. Cheese in Aurora, Colorado in 1993, killing four), John Taylor and Craig Godineaux (convicted in the Wendy's massacre in Queens in 2000), Roland James Smith, Jr. (perpetrator of the Freddie's Fashion Mart massacre in Harlem in 1995), Reginald and Jonathan Carr (convicted of the Wichita massacre of 2000), and a few more I'm probably forgetting at the moment.

If we go further back, Mark Essex's rampage in New Orleans (which left 9 dead) was in 1973, and the Fountain Valley Golf Course shooting in St. Croix of the US Virgin Islands (8 dead and 8 wounded) was in 1972.

Here's something nobody's going to say, because it requires an Aspergery detachment: these mass shootings don't matter that much.

Call me 'sperg, then, because I said something pretty similar the other day; that I was totally comfortable saying the (statistically insignificant) deaths we see from mass murders are the price we pay for liberty. And I've been drawing the bee stings and lightning strikes comparison for a week now.

But the kids are sudden, shocking, and sympathetic, so everyone gets sent into a tizzy.

No. The kids are an opportunity to push an agenda, so everyone gets sent into a tizzy. The media doesn't give a damn about the kids, per se: 12,000 deaths a year from drunk driving, not a peep in advancement of restricting people's access to alcohol.

Well you ripped that one straight from the morning's headlines...Did you read about what that Nat Turner guy did yesterday?

Hey, you takes the rare glimpses of truth where you can get them, I says.

sortocracy

Ah, now there's an over-arching -cracy I can get behind.

The Clinton Administration is the biggest mass killer of Americans in recent history it seems.

Why do people always forget Waco?

Hey, good point!

I noticed that the Clackamas Mall shootings weren't on the Mother Jones list, which casts a shadow on all the other data.

My point exactly. If MJ looks like the authority, then there probably isn't one.

""He said rate. Rate. That may well be true. I suggest you learn what "rate" means if you want to post here."

It isn't true."

No, you are quite wrong. During the Rwandan genocide, at least half a million people were killed in about 100 days. That's a rate of about 1.8 million/year. The nazis killed jews at a rate no higher than about 1.5 million/year.

James Fulford had a good article on Vdare.com showing how Mother Jones had left out at least eight black mass shooters, ten if you count the beltway snipers. They wanted to make it look like it was 'a white thing'.

If you wanted to kill people to curb population growth, why would you only kill 3% to 6% of the population and make a negligible impact on population growth?"

Maybe they got squeamish. Maybe they feared the condemnation of the outside world. Maybe they got bored. Besides, who said that killing 6% of the population had no influence on China's population growth? What would China's population be today had there not been a Great Leap Forward and a Cultural Revolution?

Homogeneity is often beneficial, but the downside of homogeneity is the kind of madness we saw with Hitlerism and Maoism. If Germany had been diverse, non-Germans would have opposed and countered the rise of Hitler or Hitler's policies.

The notion of Germans as a homogenous people would have seemed comical prior to WWII. After it, of course, they were magically transformed into the poster children for The Evils Of Homogeneity.

No, you are quite wrong. During the Rwandan genocide, at least half a million people were killed in about 100 days. That's a rate of about 1.8 million/year. The nazis killed jews at a rate no higher than about 1.5 million/year.

No, you're wrong. If they killed 500,000 in one year, the death rate is 500,000 per year. You can't just arbitrarily pick a period. You could just as easily pick a day where they didn't kill anybody, multiply by 365, and claim that the rate was 0.

"Even the ghetto trash that mugs you is just trying to feed his family"

Muggers are 'working' hard to feed their families? The vast majority of muggers and other thugs spend most of whatever money they uhh 'earn' on themselves. Legendary Linda knows this, so she is spouting untruths to everyone here. Ridiculous.

Maybe they got squeamish. Maybe they feared the condemnation of the outside world. Maybe they got bored. Besides, who said that killing 6% of the population had no influence on China's population growth? What would China's population be today had there not been a Great Leap Forward and a Cultural Revolution?

6% is the high end estimate, and an outlier among the estimates. Most of the estimates, Chinese and Western, are around 4%.

There's no evidence that the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution was a plot to curb population. Mao encouraged population growth and China's population grew significantly under Mao. The one-child policy was implemented after Mao's death.

The phrase "run amuck" comes from the Malay word "mengamuk". Native Malaysians would take up a sword and go into a crowd and attack many people. It was first documented by explorer James Cook in 1770 who wrote: "indiscriminately killing and maiming villagers and animals in a frenzied attack."

"Black men, with their massive genitalia, muscle, rhythm, social skills and access to white women and affirmative action, simply no longer have enough to be angry about during youth and when they do,, lack the IQ, spatial ability, and g loaded complex reaction time needed to kill dozens of people before being stopped (equivalent to winning a high speed video game involving rapid shooting. Rushton/Jensen show that orientals have much faster reaction time than whites who have faster reaction time than blacks (though when it comes to physical movement speed, the pattern is reversed indicating a physiological tradeoff )"

If The Legendary Linda is really female, she and Whiskey ought to go out and share a milkshake with two straws.

"There's no evidence that the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution was a plot to curb population. Mao encouraged population growth and China's population grew significantly under Mao."

Paradoxically, Mao wanted more people because he didn't value human lives. He figured he'd lose a million here, million there, etc. He was also looking forward to a war with the USSR where tens of millions might die. He figured as long as he has lots of people, he could afford to lose a whole bunch of them. He felt like a god. When the earthquake in 1976 killed 100,000s, Mao expressed no concern for dead lives. He spoke of it in mythic terms, as if it was a portent of great changes.

If The Legendary Linda is really female, she and Whiskey ought to go out and share a milkshake with two straws.

Dating is tough for me because women want a man we can look up to and I'm always much smarter, taller, and richer than all the men who are pursuing me (or too intimidated to pursue me) and it's extremely hard to be attracted to men who are my inferiors. As much as I would love to date HBD, I would seriously doubt if whiskey is anywhere near my level, and I don't think he'd be delusional enough to claim that he is.

Paradoxically, Mao wanted more people because he didn't value human lives. He figured he'd lose a million here, million there, etc. He was also looking forward to a war with the USSR where tens of millions might die. He figured as long as he has lots of people, he could afford to lose a whole bunch of them. He felt like a god. When the earthquake in 1976 killed 100,000s, Mao expressed no concern for dead lives. He spoke of it in mythic terms, as if it was a portent of great changes.

He did speak about the possibility of massive loss of life, especially in nuclear war. But there's no real indication that he was "looking forward" to it. If he really wanted millions of his own people to perish in nuclear war, he could've gotten it.

Mao died in 1976, about 6 weeks after the earthquake. He was in very bad health for the last 6 months of his life, and his last public appearance was in May of that year, before the earthquake. He also had Parkinson's or some similar neuron disease in the last years of his life.

It was rural peasants who died from the famines during the Great Leap Forward. More grain than necessary was being imported into the cities. There was no price mechanism to alert people to shortages. It was all centrally planned. People would inflate grain output and the state would import grain into cities based on the inflated figures.

Dating is tough for me because women want a man we can look up to and I'm always much smarter, taller, and richer than all the men who are pursuing me (or too intimidated to pursue me) and it's extremely hard to be attracted to men who are my inferiors.

"Was it because only 2 were killed, or because it didn't fit the Narrative because the Native American shooter killed himself when confronted by a CCW holder with a pistol?"

I think they're a form of suicide by cop.

"If SSRIs are the common factor in many of the mass shootings over the last 15 years, it will not be in the interests of their manufacturers to have it discussed. I imagine that the potential liability, if it could be established, would be enormous."

If most of them are a form of suicide by cop then it wouldn't be surprising if a large proportion of the perpetrators had been on anti-depressants.

"Dating is tough for me because women want a man we can look up to and I'm always much smarter, taller, and richer than all the men who are pursuing me (or too intimidated to pursue me) and it's extremely hard to be attracted to men who are my inferiors."

BOP-POW! Linda just made, not only Whiskey, but all of you into her LITTLE BITCHES!

"There's no evidence that the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution was a plot to curb population."

I never said it was. I said that if it killed lots of people, that Mao obviously wasn't broken up about it. There is also no evidence that the killings were not intentional. If you intentionally enact policies that result in mass starvation, one might reasonably conclude that starving a lot of people was your goal. You are expending a lot of energy to defend the reputation of a callous ideologue and cold-blooded killer.

Mss shootings are basically just another form of terrorism. In terms of practical risk, mass shooting is a negligible part of your risk of dying this year, as is domestic and international terrorism. The important impact of terrorism comes because it's spectacular and scary and gathers a lot of media attention, and so various kinds of terrorism can be used to pursue whatever agenda you already wanted to pursue, with "if it saves just one child" and "you're either with us or against us" and "we can no longer allow some petty freedoms to prevent us from keeping ourselves safe from theae monsters" as new arguments to make people shut up and let you do what you already wanted to do.

The patriot act was more or less the stuff the FBI and NSA had been lobbying for for many years before. The invasion of Iraq was a long-running goal of a bunch of Bush's foreign policy advisors. After three high-profile mass shootings in a fairly short time, a bunch of people who have wanted strict gun control for decades have suddenly come to the conclusion that the only sensible response to these mass shootings is the strict gun control they've long advocated.

"If he really wanted millions of his own people to perish in nuclear war, he could've gotten it."

According to Khrushchev, Mao urged him to invade Western Europe. Mao said he'd supply any number of men. When Khrushchev mentioned nukes, Mao said it doesn't matter. There will be many more people in the future. Mao saw people as fodder, and since China had many of them, he was wasteful about how he used human capital. Korean War could have ended much earlier in stalemate. General Peng told Mao that Americans were dug in and impossible to drive off the peninsula. Mao ordered Peng to try again and again and the war on for much longer.

Now, we will never know how trustworthy Khrushchev was, but he did have the courage to speak the truth on Stalin. And it's possible that Mao was just trash-talking to sound tough. But Mao was very callous with violence and human lives. And gratuitous and reckless.Stalin was murderous but his violence had a goal and point. After his brutal collectivization program, USSR was a major industrial power. After Mao's programs, China was worse off than before.Also, China needed Soviet aid and expertise to get ahead, but Mao messed that up by instigating some bogus argument that really had nothing to do with anything but his personal pride.

Ironically, Stalin treated Mao shabbily but Mao respected him. Khrushchev tried to be fairer to Mao but Mao pissed all over him, as if he, Mao, was the legit heir of Stalin.

In the early 70s, when Pol Pot met with Mao and laid out his plans for Cambodia, Mao praised him and blessed his plan and said China should have done the same thing. In other words, he'd been too easy and indulgent on the Chinese. Man was a monster through and through.

There is a kind of statistical sampling problem here. If nutbar A goes somewhere with nobody else armed and shoots the place up, it's a big mass shooting. If nutbar A is shot dead by off-duty cop B or armed security guard C or armed citizen D after he's only killed a couple people, it's not so clear it fits into the mass shooting category.

Now, I imagine this makes only a small difference. Most places don't have armed guards or armed citizens wandering around, because violence at a level that needs that sort of thing is extremely rare. We don't have armed violence as a normal thing most places, for the same reasons we don't have pools of raw sewage standing around as a normal thing, or rabid dogs on the street as a normal thing. Even though there are ways of handling those sort of threats, commonly employed where they exist, the best way to handle them on a society-wide basis is to mostly get rid of them. And so, we have prisons and policemen, sewers and health inspectors, mandatory rabies vaccination and dog catchers.

One unfortunate result is that these rare hazards, when they appear, are a lot more immediately hazardous. In one of those third-world countries where every business with anything worth stealing has a couple guys with rifles standing guard, a mass shooter in a public place isn't likely to rack up much of a body count. In Calcutta, everyone knows to take sensible precautions against rabid dogs in the street and standing sewage, whereas either one in a nice, safe American suburb is probably a lot more dangerous to the kids there.

I guess I need to be more explicit. The commenters have missed my point. As I remember the plot of 1984 Winston Smith accidentally one day remembers an event that is no longer officially a historical fact. It had been pushed down the "memory hole". This was part of the "who controls the present controls the past"policy. Inconvenient facts are suppressed.

Yesterday I had one of those Winston Smith moments.

I remembered that while I was in Washington DC for grad school there was a grisly home invasion and mass murder. It was a big local story because it was the family of world famous basketball player Kareem Abdul Jabbar (Lew Alcindor).

I looked it up in Wikipedia so as to check my facts. But to my amazement this shocking incident was not mentioned in the Wikipedia article at all. Nor was it mentioned in any of general biographies about Jabbar. I could find some web articles about it so I could confirm that I didn't just imagine it. But if I hadn't been there in Washington at the time and I was just researching Jabbar, I would never have known.

So this thread's major theme is the comparative paucity of black mass murderers. The reason seems to be that people only believe that because they have been victims of an informal but nearly universal conspiracy of silence. This case and the Zebra murders case have been pushed down the memory hole and millions of Americans don't realize that they have been systematically lied to about black people for most of their lives. The perpetrators of this deception were not "Big Brother". Most of them expunged the truth with good will in their hearts. They thought that they were engaging in this deception for the good of the nation.

The result is that in the popular mind blacks are associated with street crime which is easy to avoid - just stay off those particular streets. While whites are associated with mass killings which are random and out of our personal control.

Apparently we live in the world of 1984 after all. It is only different in the details.

"The notion of Germans as a homogenous people would have seemed comical prior to WWII. After it, of course, they were magically transformed into the poster children for The Evils Of Homogeneity."

Comical maybe, but Hitler pushed the notion of one Germany of one 'Aryan' people, and lots of Germans bought it. So, even if it was comical, the ideology around it brought upon WWII.

-----

The thing about diversity... there's never an equal sharing of power. For diversity to work, one group has to dominate other groups. When the power of the dominant groups begins to slip, the diverse-order begins to break apart. Take the Roman empire. Romans ruled as masters, but once Roman power began to slip, the empire cracked up into many pieces. Look at Syria now. Alawites used to be the dominant group, but now that their power is slipping, Syria is cracking up into different parts. Yugoslavia used to be stable when Tito's regime ruled. Once that power faded, it broke apart.

India was always diverse but the power was never equal among the various groups. But India wasn't just horizontally diverse--different cultures, ethnic groups, and geographies--, but vertically diverse. A class system connotes one people divided along class lines. So, class divisions can exist among a homogeneous people, as with the British. Whether highborn gentleman or lowly bloke, they were all of British stock. (Even so, the British class system sometimes had shadings of a caste system.)

But in India, even among the same clan of Hindus, different castes were seen almost as different races.

I think some have argued this was why the British control over India lasted as long as it did. British class snobs and Indian caste snobs saw eye to eye. British upper crust looked down on their mobs--to be sent as prison labor in Australia--and Hindu upper crust looked down on lower castes as 'dirty'. So, there was a wink wink nudge nudge sort of understanding between the two elite groups. If there hadn't been such a rigid caste system, the Indian elites may have been more likely to identify with the lower orders and lead them against the British. But the upper castes of India would rather dilly dally with the upper crust of British society.

Though the governing ideology of globalism is equality, it could be that the Jewish elites see eye to eye with the Indian elites for the same reason. Many Jewish elites feel nothing but disdain and distrust of American gentiles, especially white conservatives. And even now, Indian elites would rather not deal with many filthy, dark, and dirty masses of poor Indians.

------------

Forster/Lean's PASSAGE TO INDIA, if Kael is to be believed, is about repressed and prissy whites discovering sensuality and emotional openness in India among Hindus and Muslims. I find this notion silly. Muslims have always been sexually and culturally more repressive than the British. And Hindu society was very repressive, and Hindu girls were often as slaves or girl-brides.

The white women in PASSAGE have the freedom to travel around the world and choose whom to marry(and for love). Yet, PASSAGE is about how repressed white folks need to learn about sensuality and freedom from Hindus and Muslims? Not that Brits weren't repressed and prissy, but I find it funny that whites need to learn about freedom and sensuality from people who burn widows or people who put their women in veils and give them no freedom.

Me thinks PASSAGE was gay Forster projecting his own gay fantasies onto India. Since he, as a homo, felt repressed in British society, he conflated the exotic Orient as a kind of gay parade of liberation. It's like white liberals not seeing the real Africa but the Africa of their liberal fantasies of colorful and noble magic negro-ish people.

There's a framework for predicting successful suicide attempts. The three factors are feeling like a burden/useless, feeling alone/isolated, and capability for doing significant harm to oneself.

People usually have to think that the first two are unchangeable, and the theory doesn't predict that staying in on Saturday night will do it.

For mass shooters, the third one is the most interesting. Committing violence can inure on to pain and injury. Many suicides are preceded by beating someone up or getting beat up.

Mass shooters usually don't have the third thing going for them: years of playing first-person shooter videogames don't get anyone used to violence and pain. They get used to sitting and twitching a finger.

Kip Kinkel, the 15(?) year old school shooter in Oregon who survived, said he meant to kill himself after shooting his parents, but couldn't.

It's enough to make me think that school shooters and maybe other mass shooters do it in a conscious or subconscious attempt to psych themselves up for suicide.

Just that it wasn't exactly the deliberate extermination campaign that some people presume it was. ...so people just end up assuming that all the millions of deaths were due to Mao rounding up millions in concentration camps and deliberately exterminating them or something.

They prohibited private cultivation ...

Being a Communist means never having to say your sorry...

They prohibited private cultivation ...

You just said a mouthfull.

Communist official: "Anyone caught maintaing a garden to grow food will be shot. Houses will be searched, and if any stored food is found you will be shot. If someone does not appear to be sufficiently emaciated in the midst of this current famine, it will be presumed you are secretly are growing food somewhere, and you will be shot. And then maybe we will just shoot you anyway, just for the hell of it."

Then, if anyone dies of starvation, it doesn't really count. It's not like they put people in extermination camps. It's just incompetence and mismanagement.

Well, pretty much the whole world has abandoned communism now, largely as a result of the brutality, poverty, and bleakness of the countries that tried it out. Nor are there any great number of people wandering around now talking about how great a guy Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot were. (There are still some of those Ché T-shirts floating around, but to a first approxmation, none of the people wesring them know who Ché was or what he did in the Cuban revolution.).

There is a useful distinction between:

a. Intentional direct mass murder and ethnic cleansing, as with the Holocaust or Armenian genocide, or the horriffic societal apoptosis thing the Khmer Rouge.

b. Famine as an intentional indirect mechanism for mass murder and ethnic cleansing, as with Stalin's engineered famines.

c. Famine as an unintentional result of ineptitude and a failed society, which I gather is likely the cause of a lot of deaths under Mao. (Though I don't know enough to say whether those were engineered to get rid of specific undesirables.)

Those things are all horrible, but they're not all the same horrible things.

I'll admit I have never been too clear on what practical difference being off by a million or two would make, in disucssing the holocaust. I mean, what if the official estimates were off by factor of ten, and the Nazis had only murdered 600,000 Jews. Would anyone start thinking the Nazis weren't so bad at that point? Or that the holocaust hadn't been genuinely horrible?

I don't have any reason ar all to doubt the official numbers, but I don't see what moral difference would be made by any plausible size of revision of them.

"Dating is tough for me because women want a man we can look up to and I'm always much smarter, taller, and richer than all the men who are pursuing me (or too intimidated to pursue me) and it's extremely hard to be attracted to men who are my inferiors."

This is why we need to clone a million Pierce Brosnans and Sean Conneries.

I'd like to see that graph against a serial killer graph. My hypothesis is that they would have an inverse correlation. It's really hard to be a serial killer for very long these days! And there is essentially massive proganda (CSI, etc) telling would be negative attention seekers that you have to be brilliant and hard working just to be in the game and heck you always lose anyway. In past years, these losers might have gone the serial route in their quest for attention. Nowadays they aim for the mass murder suicide because there is nothing worse than screwing up your big loser revenge.

"Even the ghetto trash that mugs you is just trying to feed his family...."

The cluelessness of this is just utterly amazing. I would say that the % of muggings today that are committed by men seeking to raise funds to feed their families is zero, nada, zilch, none. You could go from one end of America to the other, from Detroit to New Orleans to Oakland to D.C. and find not ONE such case in the last 40 years. It takes a special talent to get something so wrong, some sort of willful blindness, where you take special pains to live inside a bubble where you have no idea of what life in the ghetto is actually like so that you can make entirely fact free pronouncements that fit your ideological vision of what the world should really be like. The dream world aspect of leftism is what allows people like Mao and Stalin to cause the death of millions - once you are unchained from reality, anything is possible.

a. Intentional direct mass murder and ethnic cleansing, as with the Holocaust or Armenian genocide, or the horriffic societal apoptosis thing the Khmer Rouge.

b. Famine as an intentional indirect mechanism for mass murder and ethnic cleansing, as with Stalin's engineered famines.

c. Famine as an unintentional result of ineptitude and a failed society, which I gather is likely the cause of a lot of deaths under Mao. (Though I don't know enough to say whether those were engineered to get rid of specific undesirables.)

I will grant you that c. is somewhat different, but I recognize no difference between a. and b. Willfully, purposefully starving people is every bit as evil as murdering them outright.

The cluelessness of this is just utterly amazing. I would say that the % of muggings today that are committed by men seeking to raise funds to feed their families is zero, nada, zilch, none

You're taking me too literally dear (typical of the male autistic brain). My point is that black violence is motivated by human needs (money, sex) while white and East Asian violence is just plain evil.

I guess I do have some disease which makes me unable to understand what you didn't write originally. But your updated comment still makes no sense. Most black on white violence is committed to humiliate. You need to read American Renaissance.

You're taking me too literally dear (typical of the male autistic brain). My point is that black violence is motivated by human needs (money, sex) while white and East Asian violence is just plain evil.

Your point is wrong. Much of black crime is intended to humiliate, defile, and destroy. Much of black crime is "just plain evil".

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.